Posted on 03/17/2007 3:11:01 AM PDT by Aussie Dasher
Time magazine has chosen a weeping (and Photoshopped) Ronald Reagan for its first redesigned cover in 15 years. The theme: "How the Right Went Wrong."
This is not the first time Time has run an altered photo of Reagan on its cover. The August 16, 1993 issue featured Reagan turned upside down, and the blaring headline: "Overturning the Reagan Era." The implicit message in the wake of the 1992 defeat and the passage of the Clinton tax increase: the Age of Reagan was over. Higher marginal tax rates and HillaryCare were here to stay.
The American people had something else to say about that in November 1994.
Once again, conservatism is being left for dead. The November elections were a body blow. The mood at CPAC was said to be glum (funny, I didn't see anyone roaming the exhibit hall with their heads hung low, but I don't seem to have the same magical divining powers as reporters). And conservatives are said to be disaffected with their choices for President.
As conservatives, we face challenges to be sure. But forgive me if I'm not exactly quaking in my boots at the latest in a string of Time magazine covers or New York Times/CBS News polls portending doom for Republicans.
As I wrote on my blog a little over a month ago, we can expect a concerted effort to depress Republican turnout going into 2008. The Democrats will be portrayed as fresh, vigorous, and exciting. Republicans will be framed as disappointed in their candidates, hungering for someone new.
Lo and behold, that is exactly the message we see from this Time cover, and the New York Times/CBS poll earlier in the week purporting to show that most Republicans want new options in the 2008 race.
What's left unsaid is that leading Republican Rudy Giuliani (who campaign I support and am doing some work for) has a greater favorable-to-unfavorable ratio of any the Democratic candidates amongst his own party. To the extent that the Republican candidates are less favored, it's because they are not as well known. (An average of 33% of Republicans don't know enough about any given member of their Big Three; for Democrats that number is 13%.) And the Republicans are not as well known because none of them has received Obamamania-like coverage.
Despite all this, the leading Republican candidates are leading or competitive in the polls. According to the Real Clear Politics average of all public polling, Giuliani leads Hillary Clinton by 4.8 points, while John McCain is up by 1.6 points. We are told that Democrats lead by 20 points or more in the Presidential generic ballot (traditionally a dubious measure). The fact that they can't keep pace in head-to-head matchups says more about public dissatisfaction with their candidates than it does of Republicans.
Sometimes, it seems like Republican despair (the Times uses this word in their piece) and division is mostly an artifact of press rooms and cocktail parties than it is of grassroots voices in the Republican Party. Indeed, this seems to be their strategy. Democrats can't attack Republican candidates who are broadly popular nationally using the standard playbook, so they'll play up Republican division and "despair."
This isn't to say that the primary season won't see disagreements. That's what primaries are for. But more often than not, these divisions will be greater in places like Washington, D.C. than they will in the heartland.
Another interesting fact Time ignores is this: contrary to the conventional wisdom, this primary race is in many ways more conservative than 2000. In 2000, George W. Bush ran as a "compassionate conservative" largely uninterested in deep cuts in government spending. Today, virtually every Republican carries the banner of spending discipline. With the exception of Chuck Hagel, the primary candidates or prospective candidates haven't really wavered on the prosecution of the war.
So, if conservatism is a "broken" brand, wouldn't candidates be running away from it rather than running on it?
2006 taught us the consequences of running away from the core principles that unify all Republicans, chief among them smaller government. Had we stood unambiguously on these principles, we would have fared much better than we did. The appeal of our ideas is the same or stronger than before; it was our leaders' willingness to carry them through in 2006 that "went wrong," not the conservative movement.
Times like now teach us almost nothing about broad shifts in public opinion. At this point in 1999, George W. Bush was leading by double digits -- at another time when the Republican brand was in the media doghouse after the Clinton impeachment. No one could have predicted the razor-tight 2000 election back then. Until the February 5 GigaTuesday primary, the parties will be focused on duking it out for the nomination. At that point, public opinion will realign based on the parties' nominees, and this will become a contest about the future. With Democrats lacking in bold ideas and a clear direction on the war since taking control of Congress, the Time cover looks like another example wishful thinking and media cocooning for the Democrats.
SOCON stands for "SOcial CONservative". You know, that segment of the Republican party that the country club clique would rather see run out of the party than to win elections.
The Rudybots haven't depressed me into not turning out. I will vote for the most attractive conservative candidate on the primary ballot if I have to climb over a 10 foot stack of Rudybots to get to the voting booth.
Take it from me: *real* conservatism is reproducing! Right, ladies?
Conservatism is alive and well. It's just a matter of which group's version of conservatism.
Totally agree. If the country club clique has it's way and a RINO somehow wins the White House, we can write "Ichabod" over the GOP's door and conservatism in general.
Maybe some day in the future another Reagan will come along and restore conservatism to a place of honor in the Republican party like the last Reagan did after 50 years of Rockefeller Republicanism. But when I look over the field of likely candidates on the scene today I'm not optimistic about that happening in whatever remains of my lifetime, and it may be too late to turn back the tide anyway.
When and if we launch a RINO nominee on election day, the liberals will be celebrating their unbelievably good fortune for at least the next 4 years.
If the RINO somehow manages to win, the liberals will still be celebrating their unbelievably good fortune for the next 4 years. I think that's what you call a "win-win" situation.
You are correct sir. I am also a recovering democrat. Do you feel as I do, that recovering democrats sometimes fight harder against the democrats than others? I know that no one can really make blanket statements, but no one that I know hates the democrat party more than me.
You don't know me do you Sarge?
I don't hate individual Democrats personally, Jesus Christ forbade me to hate anyone. But I do hate their party as an impersonal organization and what it has done to America as much as I hate it's puppetmaster, aka old Satan himself.
If not for the malevolent influence of the Democrat party on the selection and confirmation of federal judges and Justices, approximately 48,000,000 aborted human beings would now be alive instead of dead with their mangled and scalded bodies dumped in landfills or burned in garbage incinerators.
I knew Freerepublic was infested with PAID liberal Giuliani operatives. You are living proof of it.
I thought that is exactly what I said. I purposely chose my words very carefully so I would not single out specific people.
You made me laugh when you called me sarge. I don't know why this is the way it is, but I know many retired commissioned officers like to be called Major or Colonel, but I have never met an enlisted man, me included, that wants to be called sargeant anything. On my last duty day in Oct 87, I walked down the control tower steps and shed a tear or two, but when I reached the bottom floor, I was smiling and I never looked back.
Regards.
You seem awfully sure we will launch a RINO ..??
Why is that ..??
Excuse me?
Time Magazine wasn't all that admiring of Reagan when he held office (and I'm old enough to remember). It's hypocritical for it to invoke him in criticizing current conservatives.
IMHO it's way too early to write off all conservative candidates, but you have to admit that Giuliani is looking strong at this early stage of the game. If Thompson gets into the race I think a significant part of Hunter's supporters will switch to him because he has a much better chance of overtaking Giuliani than the relatively unknown Hunter. I also think that many people who are now tentatively backing Giuliani because they have been told that he is the only man with an R after his name who can beat Hillary will go over to Thompson if he gets in the race. Also, some of McCain's support will probably switch to Thompson as McCain's poll numbers continue to sink into the basement. My greatest hope is that although Giuliani's support appears to be a mile wide now, it will prove to be only an inch deep when real Republicans start casting real votes in real primaries.
I like Thompson because he has proven himself in the Senate to be a reasonably solid conservative, but I'm not going to commit to support him until I see who else may jump in. I just hope and pray that the primary voters give us a viable conservative nominee who I can in good conscience vote for in the general election. I have voted for the Republican in 12 straight presidential elections beginning with Nixon vs JFK in 1960. Of those 12 consecutive votes for Republican nominees, my vote for Goldwater and my two votes for Reagan were the only ones I cast without any reservations whatsoever. In the other elections the Republican at least gave lip service to fiscal and social conservative principles even if he didn't intend to uphold those principles once in office, and I voted for him even if I had to hold my nose to do it, as was the case with Nixon the 3rd time and Ford in '76.
But enough is enough is enough. I paid my dues to the party in 12 straight elections, and never again will I hold my nose and vote for a 2-faced RINO dressed up in conservative clothes just because the Democrat may be worse. If Giuliani is the GOP nominee in '08, I'll find a 3rd party nominee who I can vote for and breathe through my nose at the same time. I could suffer through a miserable four years with Hillary, Obama, or Gore in office with less mental pain and anguish than I could with the RINO who far out-RINOS every other RINO in the history of the party.
"... just because the Democrat may be worse ..."
And .. what's happening now .. how the dems are tearing up everything and holding hearing after hearing and accusing the admin of all sorts of wrong doing .. such as the firing of the AG's who's terms have expired ... You don't think the current situation would change your mind next election ..??
I'll withhold my money .. which I have been doing for some time .. but I'll never allow ANYBODY to cheat me out of my right to vote.
I know .. you also have the right to not vote .. but that's what the dems want - they want you to stay home - and I refuse to give them what THEY WANT.
You can stay home if you like .. but that's giving your vote to the DEMOCRATS .. which will most likely elect Hillary .. you can't possibly want her to be in the WH ..?? While a RINO might not be a good choice .. Hillary WILL BE 10 TIMES WORSE.
I guess I just don't understand your logic.
When Hugh Hewitt launched his "pledge" to withhold funds from any senator who voted for the resolution .. things changed in a hurry .. and I believe the repubs in the senate really got the message. They're not perfect - but McConnell has taken to the senate floor several times now and called out the dems for their idiot stuff.
I think that conservatism is on the upswing. People are getting sick of the idiocy of liberalism.
Teach your children well.
That is what you said, I just wanted to make clear that I don't hate individual Democrats because I really don't.
I have never met an enlisted man, me included, that wants to be called sargeant anything
Come to think of it neither can I. My deceased uncle was an Army Air Corps sgt during WWII and my brother in law was a USAF Msgt who put in 24 years with part of that time served in VN, and I can't recall either of them referring to themselves as Sarge in civilian life. I also employed several non-com vets who I never heard called Sarge by their friends or co-workers. I think that may be just something you hear in films or on TV.
I'll try to remember that in any future conversation we may have.
I quit reading here. I am sick to death of reading anything about that lightweight.
But I'm not going to stay home, I have no intention of breaking my string of voting in every presidential election of the last 50 years. But neither do I intend to break a solemn compact made with my adult family to never again knowingly vote for a candidate for any office at any level of government who is pro-abortion and/or pro-"gay" marriage.
Since those criteria exclude the currently leading Republican candidate from our consideration, if a plurality of Republican primary voters turn their backs on us and the millions of other Republican SOCONs by nominating that unworthy candidate for the highest office in the land, I and the other 5 adult members of my family will vote in the general election for a 3rd party nominee who is pro-life and pro-family values, or is at the very least neutral on those issues.
Providing of course that there will be a 3rd party nominee like that. If not, well we intend to vote if possible and good intentions count for at least something. In any case, there's no reason for any Republican to be concerned about whatever we do in the general election. If it becomes necessary for us to cast our five votes for a 3rd party it will only be to register our dissatisfaction with the Republican nominee, and will not make an iota of difference in the outcome of the election. So no Republican candidate or interested party involved in that election will be adversely affected by our actions.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.